#FactsMatter, the Citizens Research Council of Michigan podcast
In episode 8 of a series previewing what a constitutional convention (con-con) - a question on the November 2026 ballot - might address, hosts Guy Gordon and Eric Lupher of the Citizens Research Council of Michigan discuss Article VI - Judicial Branch. Michigan voters are asked every 16 years whether to hold a con-con. The overall takeaway: Article VI works reasonably well structurally, but judicial selection, the partisan/nonpartisan fiction, and especially court funding are issues a convention would almost certainly need to address. The 1963 Constitution Did Well Here The framers get high marks for creating a unified "one court of justice" — a clear hierarchy from district courts up through the Court of Appeals (which didn't exist before 1963) to the Supreme Court, with the Supreme Court given real administrative authority over lower courts. It was a major improvement over the previous patchwork with no clear appeals process. Key Reform Opportunities Judicial selection is broken. Supreme Court justices are nominated by party caucuses but run on a "nonpartisan" ballot — something both hosts call transparently hypocritical. Other states use bipartisan vetting committees before gubernatorial appointment, which could reduce political gamesmanship, including governors rushing to fill vacancies before leaving office. The nonpartisan/partisan contradiction also bleeds into how vacancies get filled strategically, mirroring federal Supreme Court dynamics. Age limits (currently 70) may be worth revisiting given longer lifespans, though cognitive fitness concerns remain valid. Judicial pay is underfunded and uneven — tied to a politicized compensation commission, with some Supreme Court justices earning less than circuit judges in wealthier counties. County clerks serve two masters — local government and the courts — creating administrative confusion. Courts may be better served hiring their own staff. Court funding is the most contentious issue. The state was always intended to be the primary funder of the unified court system but currently covers only 2–4% of costs, leaving local governments to fill the gap. This creates stark inequities between wealthy and poor counties, and pushes courts to raise revenue through fees and fines, which can be barriers to justice and have been ruled unconstitutional. A constitutional amendment explicitly assigning funding responsibility to the state may be necessary to force change.
130 episodios
Comentarios
0Sé la primera persona en comentar
¡Regístrate ahora y únete a la comunidad de #FactsMatter, the Citizens Research Council of Michigan podcast!